Judge: Brittney Bleyle (Austin Peay State University)
Resolution: Finals Week: This House Believes that Animal Testing Should be Banned.
|Click to begin|
Click on the other tabs to watch watch that speech.
Posted at May 25, 2020 07:03:36PM EST by Helen Maag
native workers often do better in the presence of more migrants in the labor force
Posted at May 26, 2020 08:24:59PM EST by Teresa Nuckolls
Posted at May 28, 2020 07:58:53PM EST by Teresa Nuckolls
Judge please consider flowing my overtime thank you
Same as last time as well as
This match has been completed. Show the Decision.
Submitted at May 30, 2020 10:00:18PM EST by Brittney Bleyle
|Category||Helen Maag||Teresa Nuckolls|
|Use of evidence:||4.2||4|
|Coherence of arguments:||5.1||4.5|
|Responsiveness to opponent:||5||4.5|
|Identification of key points:||5||4|
|Comments:||Great debate! I would focus on the framing arguments more so in your closing. You did a great job in the beginning with setting the framing for the debate, remember to continue throughout the debate.||Great debate! I thought the counterplan was interesting and definitely viable, but you need more answers to "why can't we do both?" as well as more disadvantages to the proposition in general. The labeling disad was one, but the proposition was able to answer it pretty effectively.|
The decision is for the Proposition: Helen Maag
Reason for Decision:
I ended up voting for the proposition. I believe the proposition's arguments for why we can allow legal refugees into the country as well as all others are persuasive. In policy debate, we would call this argument perm do both, because the proposition is proposing a permutation of their arguments as well as the opposition's counterplan arguments. The only disadvantage I can possibly see to the permutation would be the labeling disadvantage, i.e. it is harmful to label some people as legal refugees and label others as not; however, I don't see why this means that we will label others as "illegal" refugees. The argument seems to be in the world of the proposition, legal refugees will be allowed in as well as all others that don't fit into that category, therefore creating multiple separate labels of legal immigration. The link to this labeling disadvantage seems a little weak to me. I need more framing arguments from the opposition as to why permutations like these are bad, as well as other disadvantages to the proposition's plan. Lastly, I'm not sure where the opposition is going with the argument about the status quo legal refugee policies under the Trump administration. I need more warrants and analysis as to why these polices show that all future polices will fail and be as harmful as these policies are.